The present disclosure relates generally to a method for performing automated unbundled network element (UNE) migration and in particular, to a method of automating the process for performing UNE migration and management.
Local loop unbundling is an important component of deregulation. By giving Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs) equal access to the Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier's (ILEC's) copper infrastructure, a competitive environment is created for the delivery of voice and data services. Cutting over an unbundled local loop (ULL) can be a costly endeavor for an ILEC. It can consume significant time and manpower resources, and may result in stiff regulatory penalties for failure to meet wholesale delivery standards. ILEC wholesale UNE businesses are growing rapidly. In the United States, ILECs reported providing about 6.8 million lines to other carriers on a resale basis at the end of the year 2000, up from about 5.7 million lines six months earlier. These rapidly growing revenues are becoming a significant part of the future business plans of ILECs.
Regulators have defined strict standards by which ILECs must deliver UNEs. For example, with unbundled local loops (ULLs), if the time window for cutting over a loop is missed, or if the delivered loop is not operational, regulators impose fines on the ILECs. As loop cut-over is a manual process that requires several skilled technicians performing cut-overs and loop testing at the central office (CO) (often after regular work hours), ULL management can result in significant operational expenditures. Adding to these expenses are the heavy fines that can be assessed for cut-over errors and/or missed deadlines. As a result, as the wholesale loop business continues to grow, service providers are looking to find ways to improve the operational efficiencies of wholesale loop management.
In today's environment, the cut-over process is largely a manual effort. With a coordinated loop cut-over, the service providers work together to ensure as seamless a cut-over for voice service as possible. While some of the work is done ahead of time (i.e., before the alotted cut-over “window”), several technicians and supervisors are still required to stand by at the time of the actual cut-over. The typical steps taken for the cut-over include:
1. New service change order created.
2. Jumper placed from a CLEC main distribution frame (MDF) to an ILEC MDF. The jumper within the ILEC MDF frame to the plain old telephone service (POTS) port is left unconnected. Voice service continues as before. The missing jumper isolates the wholesale customer's (i.e., the CLEC) voice switch from the in-service voice circuit.
3. At the time of the coordinated cut-over, the voice switch port is turned off, or disconnected.
4. The last jumper is then put in place in the ILEC MDF. At a minimum, the ILEC's network operations center (NOC), the CLEC's NOC and a frame technician are all involved and standing by during the time coordinated window. Additional resources may also be standing by.
5. The CLEC verifies that the service is functional. If it is not, error analysis and correction (i.e., trouble shooting) is performed manually by a CO technician, since the loop is not likely to be accessible from the ILEC's testing systems. Potential problems are in the CO jumpers, either a wrong port or a poor punch down, the CLEC's wiring or the CLEC voice port configuration.
There is much that can go wrong in this process. For example, on the ILEC side, the jumpers may have been placed incorrectly, either to the wrong port or possibly a poor punch down. On the wholesale customer's side, the switch may not be properly provisioned or the wiring may be faulty. When a problem does occur, it can be a challenge to isolate the fault due to the testing being performed manually, since the loop is not likely to have test functionality once it has been cut-over. This requires technicians (and supervisors) on site at the time of the cut-over and causes significant cost to service providers. As troubleshooting often takes several hours, in many instances, the cut-over window is closed by the time the problem is identified. As a result, the cut-over must be rescheduled for a new window, adding to the ILEC's expenditures.
Another problem has to do with escalating costs. As ULL line counts continue to grow rapidly, escalating costs are of concern. Scaling wholesale head count is expensive, particularly on time-coordinated handoffs where all coordinated work must be performed during restricted time frames, typically late at night when technicians are earning overtime pay. The process requires that several ILEC personnel be at a specific place at a specific time, which is inefficient, as there is no opportunity to batch tasks. Circuit visibility can also be a problem. Once the ULL is delivered to the CLEC, the ILEC provider loses visibility and test access to the circuit. No testing means that a technician-dispatch is required to respond to trouble reports. This may lead to an extended mean time to repair (MTTR) and customer dissatisfaction. A further problem is the regulatory challenges. Performance metrics are regulated and monitored closely by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the state Public Utility Commissions (PUCs). With current practices, the onus is completely on the ILEC to assure that the cut-over goes smoothly.